then the problem is the court not understanding the technology. If you are using the domain just for email then sure, that's a valid use case and you can claim the domain is being used
back
1 comments
But then you'll just see domainers setting up sham inboxes on all their domains, don't you think?
I don't think so. It hasn't happened in Denmark at least.
Besides, just having a "domain squatting is illegal" rule would mean domain resale websites won't be possible as they will be a clear sign of bad intend.
It may not remove all the squatting, but if you can't easily set up a resale shop, it'll be a lot less economically attractive.
Well, if a court rules that having an email set up on the domain is valid, how would you know whether that given case was legit or not? Who can really speak to the motivations of doing it?
I think .dk and .com probably diverge in this case because (a) a top .com is literally a million-dollar lottery ticket of incentive, and (b) .com is so much bigger that it would probably allow for utility services that set up trivial email services for a minimal fee, across your whole portfolio of domains. I'm not sure .dk can sustain the same kind of domainer industry tooling.
Plus, there's the problem of jurisdiction. For .dk it's pretty clear: cases are heard and decided in Denmark. And, since it's mostly Danish entities using .dk, that doesn't cause much unfairness. If .com is arbitrated in the US, seems like US corps are likely to take advantage of that and cause a lot of problems for smaller entities around the world.
I wish the .dk solution could be applied to .com. I hate how .com is right now. But I'm not sure it works at global scale.